In 1963,
the police motto “to protect and serve” was officially adopted
by the Los Angeles Police Department. The motto has since been adopted
by many departments across the nation. While many officers align with
this motto as the aim and purpose of their profession, the fact is that
this motto has contributed to a substantial gap between what the public
perceives as the responsibility of public safety personnel and what an
officer has a legal duty to protect. In fact, what many citizens believe
to be a police, fire and rescue personnel’s duty to “protect
and serve” them is actually in direct conflict with the “public
duty doctrine” which states: “absent a special relationship
between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental
entity will not be liable for injury to an individual... the governmental
entity owes a duty to the public in general.”

This
unforgettable story highlights this misunderstanding in no uncertain terms.
In conjunction with the associated court ruling, the video below spells
out in no uncertain terms who the police are NOT responsible to protect.
It is 13 minutes long, and I implore you to watch all of it.

As you
watch this video, pay special attention to what the public perceives the
police to be responsible for... Some of those interviewed even exhibit
indignation that the question “would the NYPD come to your aid if
you were attacked” was asked in the first place. Then watch what
unfolds.

On Feb
12th of 2011, 42-year old Joseph Lozito was riding the subway in New York
City when he was attacked by Maxim Gellman, a knife wielding madman who
police had been on the lookout for in connection with a drug-fueled 28-hour
killing spree. The two police officers who were in the same subway car
as Lozito retreated into the locked motorman’s cabin and watched
as Lozito was brutally attacked by Gellman. Lozito, a martial arts enthusiast,
was able to subdue his attacker, but not before receiving several stab
wounds. Once the attacker had been disarmed and subdued by Lozito, the
two officers advanced from the locked motorman’s cabin to take over
and arrest Gellman. Lozito sued the NYPD in 2012 for injuries
he received during the attack, claiming that the NYPD was negligent, as
officers did nothing to help him and instead watched the attack. The case
was recently dismissed by judge Margaret Chan because “no direct
promises of protection were made to Mr. Lozito,” the police had
“no special duty” to protect him. (check
out the full story here).

Let’s
hear that one more time... just to be clear... The police have no duty
to protect an individual... just the public at large. I’m not arguing
over the law here, my objective is to make as many people as possible
aware of what the NYPD officer’s legal obligations were in this
situation.

What
makes this so ironic and infuriating, is that politicians who
time and time again act to remove, or strictly limit the right of the
individual to protect themselves with firearms, tasers, pepper
spray and the like will often cite statistics regarding the efficiency
and effectiveness of law enforcement personnel to respond to “save
you.” What they fail to mention, is that it matters not
how “fast or efficient” an officer’s response time is,
if they have no legal obligation to protect you, or intervene
when they get there.

I’ll
admit, when I sat through the lectures on negligence in my EMT and fire
classes, I was taken aback when I learned how the moral code of conduct
that a public safety official voluntarily assumes is quite different from
concepts of duty and negligence as viewed from a legal perspective. Once
again, I must emphasize that while many public servants WILL be there
to render aid, they will not likely be found negligent if they don’t.

In short,
courts have ruled, time and time again, that police and emergency
response personnel have no duty to protect, rescue or otherwise render
aid to a specific individual, only to the public at large. If
a public safety official feels unsafe or fears for their safety, they
can stand right there and do nothing as you are beaten, burn, or drown.
I’m not saying that police, fire and rescue personnel don’t
go above and beyond each and every day, but what is especially important
to note is that in many instances, they DON’T have to.

What
is even more important to be aware of is that there is an alarming trend
in which many, departments choose to respond in ways that are least likely
to expose them to lawsuits. What does this mean? It means that many
departmental policies are now written in such a way that often times prohibits
or limits responders from actually responding... The department
officials know that they can’t be sued for negligence as no “special
relationship” exists, but they might get into hot water for taking
extraordinary or heroic measures to “serve and protect”...
so which do you think wins out...

I’m
all for coming home safe at the end of the day, but policy written to
protect an agency from litigation rather than to “protect the public
at large” is becoming more commonplace... Don’t believe me?
check these out:

Warren
V District of Columbia it was found that police do not have a duty to
provide police
services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the
way. “..despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the
part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court
stated that official police personnel and the government employing them
owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a
failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship
exists.”

And
chances are, you don’t have any “special relationship”
with the police. But in case you were wondering what would constitute
a “special relationship,” let me give you an example... In
the train attack scenario described in this article, let’s say that
after the assailant (Gellman) was handcuffed by police, passengers on
the train decided to beat him. Police would then have a duty to defend
him, (yes the knife-wielding murderer), because the officers had taken
him into custody and he was now their charge. If the NYPD officers stood
idly by as the murderer was attacked, as they had when Mr. Lozito was,
officers could be found negligent, because a “special relationship”
existed between the police and the murderer as soon as he was detained.

If
you take anything from this article, please let it be these two points:

1:
It is important that each and every one of us understand that WE are ultimately
responsible for our safety and for the safety of our family and loved
ones. Police and fire may be there to help, but ultimately, it may be
up to us, as individuals to render first aid, cpr, or defend our family
from from criminals.

2:
How we choose to react to this information is of paramount importance.
I realize that many readers are already familiar with this information
and its implications... To those readers, I would ask: What have you done
to prepare yourself and your loved ones in the event that public safety
does not respond as expected to a call for help...

For
those readers for which this discussion of the “to protect and serve”
motto is a new concept, I would ask, what will you do to prepare
your family to deal with this paradigm shift? What this means for each
of us is different... some may wish to take specialized training in first
aid, others may wish to become proficient with a firearm...

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

I believe
that many people will shake their heads with disbelief when reading this
article and watching the associated video. I implore you: don’t
take my word for it... use your favorite search engine and research it
yourself. search for “do the police have a duty to protect.”
Chances are, if you need help, the system will work as we expect it to,
but please understand, we have seen that what the public expects and what
you as an individual are actually entitled to when it comes to public
safety response are two very different things. What will you do to bridge
the gap?

Anthony
is the author of Hurricane
Katrina – A Journey of Hope, which recounts the work done by
emergency search and rescue personnel in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
in 2005. He has also served as a Branch Chief at the US Department of
Homeland Security HQ where he led a team of professionals charged with
protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure ranging from nuclear
power plants to the Hoover Dam. Has
its roots in several years of public and private sector work, as well
as disaster relief work.

Through
his family's consulting company, Anthony is now focused on helping hardworking
people use the skills and talents they already have, to help them create
products and services to share with a community of people who want them,
and in turn, help them make additional income to better their life, become
more efficient and more self reliant.